Of course, I could also take the counterpoint and say that every time we discuss the ad instead of Petraeus, we’re guilty of falling for the frame as well. So I’ll stop.

I’d be loath to trust the Washington Post on any sort of fact-checking, as they fuck it up worse on a daily basis than MoveOn.org ever has.

With that said, I agree with your comments that the ad made it more about them than the issue of Petraeus’ shill testimony. My problem with your comments was that I felt like you were giving Petraeus a pass simply because he was an Army general. That’s something I would always fight back against.

I’m glad you think so…

Alas, that’s not enough for me – I need pragmatic, concrete results to my choices (at least in this realm).

If I had to vote for someone in line with my beliefs, I’d still be a non-voter it seems – don’t see many anarchists running for office. I don’t wish to whine about anybody, either. I would have to whine about everyone. If voting earns a special privilege to be heard whining, then can only whine about the person I didn’t vote for; because, actually I didn’t vote for any of them. If it would somehow earn me the privilege to whine about the person I did vote for, then there’d be a LOT less whining these days.

I understand it is a choice. And my choice makes as much difference as yours.

I think MoveOn played a little loose with the language. Some of its claims in that ad are open to varying interpretation or cannot be supported.

I’ll let the Washington Post explain. Please see:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/

I also think that tactically, it was a blunder. If MoveOne sought to enlighten, it failed. If it sought to foster dissent, it succeeded spectacularly. I’d love to know how MoveOn’s own fundraising fared in the wake of the ad.

The attempt to make a point also suffered from the law of unintended consequences. Instead of talking about the content of the ad, much of the coverage went to the supposed “cut-rate” cost of the ad.

If I were MoveOn’s media strategist, this is not what I’d have recommended.

Denny

Given that there will be someone running the country, do you want that someone to be more or less in line with your beliefs? If you choose not to choose the person more in line, you’ve chosen to let others make that choice for you. Which is fine, BTW – just don’t whine (to me, anyway) if that person does something you don’t like.

I’ll say it again – every non-choice is a choice. So please, make sure you make your choices carefully.

They’re all bastards interested in $$$ and $$$ alone, Denny. I love Edwards, but he’s a $$$ guy, too. He can’t help but be.

It’s the SYSTEM that’s got to be addressed.

Degree of disagreement with another person should hardly matter if they didn’t have that monopoly on the use of force to begin with. If you want to be ruled, then voting may be a necessary analgesic. I don’t make the assumption that there has to be someone to rule me, so I don’t feel it necessary to choose who those somebodies are.

Sure, and your non-vote becomes a vote for the winner because you choose not to vote for the loser. And if the winner happens to be someone you disagree with more than the loser, then you’re partly responsible for the fact that the greater evil won.

Even a non-choice is a choice.

But so many people did and do. This is the open secret of politics; that arm-twisting and apathy shelter and reward the most aggressively venal of the pack.

How on earth do you decide for whom to vote?

Week Released: September 17-21, 2007

The Millennial Generation, including myself, is interested in being an
active part of changing public policy. This interest led me to be a part of
Mobilize.org¹s Democracy 2.0 Campaign.

On July 4, Mobilize.org began the Democracy 2.0 project to call attention to
the ways that our democratic process and institutions are properly serving
and failing to serve the interests of Americans, specifically young
Americans. The purpose of Democracy 2.0 is to call attention to the main
problems of our current political system, highlight the distinct
characteristics of the Millennial Generation, and provide guidelines for
change to help cultivate a renewed political process in America.

Currently, our political system is trying to manage a 21st century society
with 18th century political institutions. Democracy 2.0 will upgrade our
current political system, empowering citizens to identify community
problems, propose solutions, be a part of the implementation of these
solutions, and change the way politics is done in this country.

To begin this endeavor, Mobilize.org asked a series of questions and
collected data from youth, ages 16-30 that will be reviewed and evaluated by
Democracy 2.0 Ambassadors at the Democracy 2.0 Summit on October 3, 2007,
with the intention of releasing the Democracy 2.0 Declaration of Our
Generation. The Declaration of our Generation is a short statement of
principles describing a citizen-centered approach to democracy. The
Declaration will focus on three themes: 1) What currently works and what
does not work in our democracy; 2) What defines our generation; and 3) What
Democracy 2.0 should look like.

The Declaration will call attention to areas in which the government is
succeeding and failing to serve the public interest, highlight the unique
and defining characteristics of our generation, and provide guidelines that
will serve as a call to action for American citizens to help create this
renewed form of democracy.

I wanted to mention this opportunity since every posting here has an
interest in this. Mobilize.org is looking for people who want to serve as
Democracy 2.0 Online Ambassadors to be a part of the drafting process. If
you have any questions, please shoot me an e-mail at brendan.chan@mail.utexas.edu.

We do know the candidates, though. They are the same and have been the same for centuries. I believe you mentioned it in the entry, “…candidates are gaming a political system that isn’t about serving the needs of the nation or its citizenry as much as it is about obtaining and keeping power…”

Garbage in, garbage out.